DOCSLIB.ORG

Kim V. Schiltgen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kim V. Schiltgen Find Result - 2002 WL 31016560 06/15/2007 08:28 PM FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 2002 WL 31016560 (U.S.) For opinion see 123 S.Ct. 1708, 122 S.Ct. 2696 Briefs and Other Related Documents United States Supreme Court Petitioner's Brief. Charles DEMORE, District Director, San Francisco District of Immigration and Naturalization Service, et al., Petitioners, v. Hyung Joon KIM. No. 01-1491. August 29, 2002. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS Theodore B. Olson Solicitor General Counsel of Record Robert D. McCallum, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Edwin S. Kneedler Deputy Solicitor General Austin C. Schlick Assistant to the Solicitor General Donald E. Keener Mark C. Walters Hugh G. Mullane Michelle Gorden Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 *I QUESTION PRESENTED Section 1226(c)(1) of Title 8 of the United States Code requires the Attorney General to take into custody aliens who are inadmissible to or deportable from the United States because they have committed a specified offense, including an aggravated felony. Section 1226(c)(2) of Title 8 prohibits release of those aliens during administrative proceedings to remove them from the United States, except in very http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?bhcp=1&cite=2002+WL+31016560&FN=%5Ftop&rs=LAWS2%2E0&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&vr=1%2E0 Page 1 of 43 Find Result - 2002 WL 31016560 06/15/2007 08:28 PM limited circumstances not present here. The question presented in this case is: Whether respondent's mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent concedes that his criminal convictions after admission into the United States put him within the class of removable aliens who are subject to detention. West Headnotes KeyCite Notes 24 Aliens, Immigration, and Citizenship 24VI Arrest, Detention, Supervision, and Parole 24VI(D) Detention, Supervision, and Parole 24k464 Detention Pending Removal Proceeding 24k465 k. In General. Most Cited Cases (Formerly 24k53.9) 92 Constitutional Law 92XII Due Process of Law 92k274.3 k. Regulations Affecting Aliens. Most Cited Cases Does the mandatory detention of a lawful permanent resident alien, under the statute requiring the Attorney General to take into custody aliens who are inadmissible to or deportable from the United States because they have committed a specified offense, including an aggravated felony, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where the alien has conceded that his criminal convictions after admission into the United States have put him within the class of removable aliens who are subject to detention? U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; Immigration and Nationality Act, § 236(c), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1226(c). *III TABLE OF CONTENTS Opinions below ... 1 Jurisdiction ... 1 Constitutional and statutory provisions involved ... 1 http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?bhcp=1&cite=2002+WL+31016560&FN=%5Ftop&rs=LAWS2%2E0&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&vr=1%2E0 Page 2 of 43 Find Result - 2002 WL 31016560 06/15/2007 08:28 PM Statement ... 2 Summary of argument ... 8 Argument ... 11 I. Mandatory detention of criminal aliens under Section 1226(c) during proceedings to remove them from the United States is consistent with due process ... 11 A. Congress determined that criminal aliens' flight risk and danger to the community were serious problems that justified mandatory detention ... 12 B. Congress's determinations about the necessity of mandatory detention are judgments about immigration policy that merit particular judicial respect ... 23 C. Zadvydas supports a determination that Section 1226(c) is constitutional ... 38 II. Section 1226(c) does not in any event violate due process on its face ... 42 A. Aliens detained at the United States border have no due process right to avoid detention, and aliens who enter or remain illegally have a diminished due process ... 44 B. Mandatory detention during removal proceedings is particularly permissible as applied to aliens for whom there is not a significant likelihood of avoiding removal ... 46 *IV C. Mandatory detention also is especially warranted when the alien has committed the most serious crimes that trigger Section 1226(c) ... 47 D. Section 1226(c) could not be held unconstitutional without reference to the duration of the alien's detention ... 48 Conclusion ... 49 Appendix ... 1a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524 ... 10, 33, 39, 47 Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977) ... 23, 44 http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?bhcp=1&cite=2002+WL+31016560&FN=%5Ftop&rs=LAWS2%2E0&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&vr=1%2E0 Page 3 of 43 Find Result - 2002 WL 31016560 06/15/2007 08:28 PM Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580 (1952) ... 33 Hoang v. Comfort, 282 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2002), petition for cert. pending, No. 01- 1616 (filed May 3, 2002) ... 31, 32, 38, 39, 43 INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999) ... 29 INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) ... 24, 28 INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984) ... 29 INS v. Yueh-Shaio Yang, 519 U.S. 26 (1996) ... 27 Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345 (1956) ... 27 Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) ... 45 Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999) ... 42 Joseph, In re, 22 I.&N. Dec. 799, 1999 WL 339053 (BIA 1999) ... 26, 27 Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997) ... 35 Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185 (1958) ... 44 Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) ... 33 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) ... 5, 24 Narenji v. Civiletti, 617 F.2d 745 (D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 957 (1980) ... 33 Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983) ... 27 *V Parra v. Perryman, 172 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 1999) ... 8, 32, 43, 46 Patel v. Zemski, 275 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2001) ... 32, 38, 39, 43 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) ... 32 Radoncic v. Zemski, 28 Fed. Appx. 113 (3d Cir. 2000), petition for cert. pending, No. 01-1459 (filed Apr. 4, 2002) ... 43, 46 Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) ... 10, 23, 31, 33, 41 http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?bhcp=1&cite=2002+WL+31016560&FN=%5Ftop&rs=LAWS2%2E0&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&vr=1%2E0 Page 4 of 43 Find Result - 2002 WL 31016560 06/15/2007 08:28 PM Richardson v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1036 (2000) ... 25 Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) ... 32 Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (1984) ... 48 Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U.S. 487 (1971) ... 4 Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) ... 23 Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1228 (2000) ... 27 United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950) ... 44 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) ... 4, 43, 48 Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688 (1st Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 43 (2001) ... 4 Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994) ... 32 Welch v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2002) ... 24, 31, 32, 38, 39, 42, 43, 47, 48 Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896) ... 11, 23, 46 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) ... passim Constitution, statutes and regulations: U.S. Const. Amend. V ... 4, 1a Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, Tit. VII, § 7343(a), 102 Stat. 4470 ... 12 *VI Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 ... 21 § 440(c), 110 Stat. 1277 ... 21 § 440(e), 110 Stat. 1277-1278 ... 22 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?bhcp=1&cite=2002+WL+31016560&FN=%5Ftop&rs=LAWS2%2E0&strRecreate=no&sv=Split&vr=1%2E0 Page 5 of 43 Find Result - 2002 WL 31016560 06/15/2007 08:28 PM 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 ... 2 § 303(b), 110 Stat. 3009-586 (8 U.S.C. 1226(c) note) ... 37, 47 § 303(b)(2), 110 Stat. 3009-586 (8 U.S.C. 1226(c) note) ... 37 § 304(a), 110 Stat. 3009-587 to 3009-593 ... 2 Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 ... 13 § 501(a), 104 Stat. 5048 ... 14 § 504(a)(5), 104 Stat. 5049 ... 14 § 504(b), 104 Stat. 5050 (8 U.S.C. 1226(e)(1) (Supp. II 1990)) ... 14 Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. ... 2 § 101, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B) ... 44 § 101(a)(43), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43) (1988) ... 13 § 101(a)(43), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43) ... 2, 13, 22, 33 § 101(a)(43)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(A) ... 47 § 101(a)(43)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii) ... 34 § 101(a)(43)(F), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) ... 34 § 101(a)(43)(G), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G) ... 3 § 101(a)(43)(R), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(R) ... 34 §§ 201-203, 8 U.S.C. 1151-1153 ... 6 § 208(b), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b) ... 30 § 208(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2) ... 27 § 212, 8 U.S.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New York State DREAM Act Application
    Step-by-Step User Guide to completing the New York State DREAM Act Application This user guide breaks down the New York State DREAM Act eligibility application and clarifies why certain questions are asked, how to answer each question accurately, and what documentation must be provided to verify your eligibility. Table of Contents Overview of Applications ........................................................................................................................... 3 The New York State DREAM Act Eligibility Requirements .............................................................. 3 NYS DREAM Act Application ................................................................................................................... 5 Student High School Education Details .............................................................................................. 5 High School Status ............................................................................................................................. 5 High School Completion .................................................................................................................... 7 Student Citizenship and Immigration Status ...................................................................................... 8 Social Security Number (SSN) or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN): .............................. 10 Student Information .............................................................................................................................. 10 Student
    [Show full text]
  • US Immigration
    BUSHELL (DO NOT DELETE) 5/29/2013 2:45 PM “Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses”—Just as Long as They Fit the Heteronormative Ideal: U.S. Immigration Law’s Exclusionary & Inequitable Treatment of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer Migrants Logan Bushell* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 674 II. IMMIGRATION & SEXUALITY: AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF REGULATING SEXUALITY AT THE BORDER .......................................... 677 A. 1875-1917: Establishing a Foundational Blueprint for Exclusion of LGBTQ Migrants .................................................... 678 B. 1917-1990: Adherence to the Blueprint for Exclusion of LGBTQ Migrants ......................................................................... 680 III. REFUGE IN THE COURTHOUSE? THE JUDICIARY’S APPROACH TO EXCLUSIONARY IMMIGRATION LAWS & POLICIES .............................. 683 A. Boutilier v. INS: Not Welcome—The Judiciary’s Sanctioning of Exclusionary Immigration Laws & Policies ............................ 683 B. Hill v. INS: An Inclusionary Olive Branch from the Judiciary ... 685 IV. TWO STEPS FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK: PROGRESSIVE MEASURES PROVE MERELY PRETEXTUAL ........................................... 687 A. No Longer Categorically Excluded, but Certainly Not Included: Dismissing LGBTQ Persons from Family Unification ................................................................................... 687 B. Defense of Marriage Act: Deciding Exactly Who
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration Law and the Myth of Comprehensive Registration
    Immigration Law and the Myth of Comprehensive Registration Nancy Morawetz†* and Natasha Fernández-Silber** This Article identifies an insidious misconception in immigration law and policy: the myth of comprehensive registration. According to this myth — proponents of which include members of the Supreme Court, federal and state officials, and commentators on both sides of the immigration federalism debate — there exists a comprehensive federal alien registration system; this scheme obligates all non-citizens in the United States to register and carry registration cards at all times, or else face criminal sanction. In truth, no such system exists today, nor has one ever existed in American history. Yet, federal agencies like U.S. Border Patrol refer to such a system to justify arrests and increase enforcement statistics; the Department of Justice points to the same mythic system to argue statutory preemption of state immigration laws (rather than confront the discriminatory purpose and effect of those laws); and, states trot it out in an attempt to turn civil immigration offenses into criminal infractions. Although this legal fiction is convenient for a variety of disparate political institutions, it is far from convenient for those who face wrongful arrest and detention based on nothing more than failure to carry proof of status. Individuals in states with aggressive “show me your papers” immigration laws or under the presence of U.S. Border Patrol are particularly at risk. In an effort to dispel this dangerous misconception, this Article reviews the history of America’s experimentation with registration laws and the † Copyright © 2014 Nancy Morawetz and Natasha Fernández-Silber.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Wins and Who Loses Under the Immigration Act of 1990? Brian Adler
    University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 7-1-1992 Capital v. Labor: Who Wins and Who Loses Under the Immigration Act of 1990? Brian Adler Beth Jarrett Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umialr Part of the Immigration Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons Recommended Citation Brian Adler and Beth Jarrett, Capital v. Labor: Who Wins and Who Loses Under the Immigration Act of 1990?, 23 U. Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 789 (1992) Available at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umialr/vol23/iss3/10 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Inter- American Law Review by an authorized administrator of Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT CAPITAL v. LABOR: WHO WINS AND WHO LOSES UNDER THE IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1990? I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 790 II. THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) ............... 793 A. History and Background of NAFTA .............................. 793 B. The Pros and Cons of NAFTA ................................... 795 C. Labor M obility and NAFTA ..................................... 797 IIl. CHANGES IN IMMIGRATION LAW UNDER THE IA90 AND CONGRESS'S UNDERLYING GOALS IN IMPLEMENTING THE ACT ...................................... 799 A . Passage of the IA90 ............................................. 799 B. Congress's Goals - Diversifying the Immigrant Pool and Increasing Skilled Labor Im m igration ...................... ......... ...... 801 IV. DOCTRINAL ANALYSIS OF THE IA90'S THIRD EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE AND DISCUSSION OF ITS CONSEQUENCES .................................. 803 A. Third Employment-Based Preference - Skilled Workers, Profession- als, and "O thers" .
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 80
    Calendar No. 80 113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 113–40 BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AND IMMIGRATION MODERNIZATION ACT JUNE 7, 2013.—Ordered to be printed Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany S. 744] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 744), to provide for comprehensive immigration reform, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Background and Purpose of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act ........................................................ 1 II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration ....................................... 22 III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill ...................................................... 75 IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 161 V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation ...................................................................... 161 VI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 161 VII. Additional and Minority Views ..................................................................... 163 VIII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ........................... 186 I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE BORDER SECURITY, ECONOMIC
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Judicial Review of Immigration Matters
    An Overview of Judicial Review of Immigration Matters Margaret Mikyung Lee Legislative Attorney September 11, 2013 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43226 An Overview of Judicial Review of Immigration Matters Summary Congress has plenary or sovereign power over the conditions for admitting aliens into the United States and permitting them to remain. This power is so completely entrusted to the political branch to legislate and implement as to be largely free from judicial review. However, this power is still subject to constitutional limitations, including substantive and procedural due process protections. In immigration cases, due process may be a flexible concept and the particular procedures that may be constitutionally required depend on the relative interests involved. Historically, immigration policy has sought to encourage and enable the admission and integration of desirable immigrants (workers, family, refugees/asylees), while discouraging and preventing the entry of undesirable aliens (national security risks/terrorists, criminals, public charges). Accordingly, in deciding what degree of judicial review is appropriate in immigration matters, Congress has sought a balance between a system that is fair to desired immigrants, yet facilitates the removal of undesired aliens. Initially, a habeas corpus proceeding provided the primary avenue of judicial review of various immigration determinations. In the wake of Supreme Court decisions construing the Administrative Procedure Act as applying to and providing an avenue for judicial review of immigration adjudications, Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 by adding a judicial review provision in 1961 that provided for review by federal courts of appeal for deportation orders, but only for habeas corpus review of exclusion orders by federal district courts.
    [Show full text]
  • Temporary Migration to the United States
    TEMPORARY MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES NONIMMIGRANT ADMISSIONS UNDER U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW Temporary Migration to the United States: Nonimmigrant Admissions Under U.S. Immigration Law U.S. Immigration Report Series, Volume 2 About this Edition This document discusses nonimmigrants and the laws and regulations concerning their admission to the United States. The purpose of this report is to describe the various nonimmigrant categories and discuss the policy concerns surrounding these categories. Topics covered include: adjustment of status, temporary workers, work authorization, and visa overstays. The United States welcomes visitors to our country for a variety of purposes, such as tourism, education, cultural exchange, and temporary work. Admittance to the United States as a nonimmigrant is intended to be for temporary visits only. However, some nonimmigrants are permitted to change to a different nonimmigrant status or, in some cases, to permanent resident status. This report provides an overview of the reasons for visiting the United States on a temporary basis and the nexus between temporary visitor and permanent resident. Nonimmigrants – v. 06.a TEMPORARY MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES: NONIMMIGRANT ADMISSIONS UNDER U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW Research and Evaluation Division U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of Policy and Strategy January 2006 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by staff in the Research and Evaluation Division of the Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, under the direction of David R. Howell, Deputy Chief, and Lisa S. Roney, Director of Evaluation and Research. The report was written by Rebecca S. Kraus. The following staff made significant contributions in the research for and review of this report: Lisa S.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Encyclopedia of American Immigration Table of Contents A Abolition movement Accent discrimination Acquired immune deficiency syndrome Adoption Affirmative action African Americans and European immigrants African immigrants Afroyim v. Rusk Alabama Alaska Albright, Madeleine Alien and Sedition Acts Alien land laws Alvarez, Julia Amerasian children Amerasian Homecoming Act American Colonization Society American Jewish Committee American Protectivist Association Americanization programs Angel Island immigration station Angell's Treaty Anglo-conformity Anti-Catholicism Anti-Chinese movement Anti-Defamation League Anti-Filipino violence Anti-Japanese movement Anti-Semitism Antimiscegenation laws Antin, Mary Arab immigrants Argentine immigrants Arizona Arkansas Art Asakura v. City of Seattle Asian American Legal Defense Fund Asian American literature Asian immigrants Asian Indian immigrants Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance Asiatic Barred Zone Asiatic Exclusion League Assimilation theories Association of Indians in America Astor, John Jacob Au pairs Australian and New Zealander immigrants Austrian immigrants Aviation and Transportation Security Act B Bayard-Zhang Treaty Belgian immigrants Bell, Alexander Graham Bellingham incident Berger v. Bishop Berlin, Irving Bilingual education Bilingual Education Act of 1968 Birth control movement Border fence Border Patrol Born in East L.A. Boston Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service Bracero program "Brain drain" Brazilian immigrants British immigrants Bureau of Immigration Burlingame Treaty Burmese immigrants C Cable Act California California gold rush Cambodian immigrants Canada vs. the U.S. as immigrant destinations Canadian immigrants Canals Capitation taxes Captive Thai workers Censuses, U.S. Center for Immigration Studies Chae Chan Ping v. United States Chain migration Chang Chan v. Nagle Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle Chicago Chicano movement Child immigrants Chilean immigrants Chin Bak Kan v.
    [Show full text]
  • Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy
    Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy Updated July 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45020 SUMMARY R45020 Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy July 1, 2021 U.S. immigration policy is governed largely by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was first codified in 1952 and has been amended significantly several times since. U.S. William A. Kandel immigration policy contains two major aspects. One facilitates migration flows into the United Analyst in Immigration States according to principles of admission that are based upon national interest. These broad Policy principles currently include family reunification, U.S. labor market contribution, origin-country diversity, and humanitarian assistance. The United States has long distinguished permanent from temporary immigration. Permanent immigration occurs through family and employer-sponsored categories, the diversity immigrant visa lottery, and refugee and asylee admissions. Temporary immigration occurs through the admission of foreign nationals for specific purposes and limited periods of time, and encompasses two dozen categories that include foreign tourists, students, temporary workers, and diplomats. The other major aspect of U.S. immigration policy involves restricting entry to and removing persons from the United States who lack authorization to be in the country, are identified as criminal aliens, or whose presence in the United States is determined to not serve the national interest. Such immigration enforcement is broadly divided between border enforcement—at and between U.S. land, air, and sea ports of entry—and other enforcement tasks including interior enforcement, detention, removal, worksite enforcement, and combatting immigration fraud. The dual role of U.S. immigration policy—admissions and enforcement—creates challenges for balancing major policy priorities, such as ensuring national security, facilitating trade and commerce, protecting public safety, and fostering international cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Author Version for Repository
    Citation for publisher version: Ho, Calvin N. “Talent Selection and the Reshaping of Asian North America.” AAPI Nexus 15(1 & 2): 57-84. Resource Paper Talent Selection and the Reshaping of Asian North America Calvin N. Ho Abstract Policies that admit immigrants based on their education have dramatically reshaped the demographics of the United States and Canada. In the mid-1960s, facing pressures to open their borders to non-Europeans, both countries replaced previous policies of racial and nationality discrimination with new systems of socioeconomic discrimination. These policies explain the growth of Asian immigration from the 1970s onward, as well as the high levels of education among Asian immigrants and their descendants. Refugees and family migrants, however, added socioeconomic diversity. Recent developments in skilled immigrant selection programs will continue to shape Asian American and Asian Canadian demographics in the future. 1 Introduction In the United States and Canada today, the popular image of Asian immigrants and their descendants is a middle- to upper-class image. “Asian American whiz kids” dominating Ivy League universities, immigrant engineers quietly powering technology firms, and multimillionaires scooping up Vancouver real estate are some of the tropes that consistently appear in media about Asians in North America. The predominant stereotype is that Asians are wealthy, educated, “desirable” minorities, while other minority groups like blacks, indigenous North Americans, Latin Americans, and Middle Easterners are “undesirable”—poor, uneducated, and even dangerous. How did we get here, given that, for example, East Asians were considered the “yellow peril” in the mid-nineteenth century, South Asians were ruled as ineligible for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy
    U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy William A. Kandel Analyst in Immigration Policy February 9, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43145 U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy Summary Family reunification has historically been a key principle underlying U.S. immigration policy. It is embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which specifies numerical limits for five family-based immigration categories, as well as a per-country limit on total family-based immigration. The five categories include immediate relatives (spouses, minor unmarried children, and parents) of U.S. citizens and four other family-based categories that vary according to individual characteristics such as the legal status of the petitioning U.S.-based relative, and the age, family relationship, and marital status of the prospective immigrant. Of the 1,183,505 foreign nationals admitted to the United States in FY2016 as lawful permanent residents (LPRs), 804,793, or 68%, were admitted on the basis of family ties. Of the family-based immigrants admitted in FY2016, 70% were admitted as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. Many of the 1,183,505 immigrants were initially admitted on a nonimmigrant (temporary) visa and became immigrants by converting or “adjusting” their status to a lawful permanent resident. The proportion of family-based immigrants who adjusted their immigration status while residing in the United States (34%) was substantially less than that of family-based immigrants who had their immigration petitions processed while living abroad (66%), although such percentages varied considerably among the five family-based immigration categories. Since FY2000, increasing numbers of immediate relatives of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 104–208—Sept
    PUBLIC LAW 104±208ÐSEPT. 30, 1996 110 STAT. 3009 *Public Law 104±208 104th Congress An Act Making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September Sept. 30, 1996 30, 1997, and for other purposes. [H.R. 3610] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations DIVISION A Act, 1997. That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the several depart- ments, agencies, corporations and other organizational units of the Government for the fiscal year 1997, and for other purposes, namely: TITLE IÐOMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS Sec. 101. (a) For programs, projects or activities in the Depart- ments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997, provided as follows, to be effec- tive as if it had been enacted into law as the regular appropriations Act: AN ACT Departments of Commerce, Justice, and Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and Judiciary, and for other purposes. Related Agencies Appropriations TITLE IÐDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Act, 1997. Department of Justice GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Appropriations Act, 1997. SALARIES AND EXPENSES For expenses necessary for the administration of the Depart- ment of Justice, $75,773,000 of which not to exceed $3,317,000 is for the Facilities Program 2000, to remain
    [Show full text]